Of those three, a Sony would be the clear choice for me, but I'd forego the 'Live View' and get either the A200 or the A700.

Although I'm not too tight up to LV, I must admit that Sony's implementation makes it a very usable feature. When I first tried the LV on the A300, I was impressed by it. It makes the Oly LV feel like an obsolete piece of technology. I recently bought the A200 on eBay for a mere $346 (can't beat that!!).

Although I'm not too tight up to LV, I must admit that Sony's implementation makes it a very usable feature. When I first tried the LV on the A300, I was impressed by it. It makes the Oly LV feel like an obsolete piece of technology. I recently bought the A200 on eBay for a mere $346 (can't beat that!!).

That's a nice price for the A200.

I very much prefer an optical viewfinder. I used to use a Nikon P&amp;S (still do ocassionally) and never really liked the 'Live View'.

I very much prefer an optical viewfinder. I used to use a Nikon P&amp;S (still do ocassionally) and never really liked the 'Live View'.

Yes, it was a great price and the auction stated that the camera was new in box (seller had 100% positive feedback). I haven't received it yet so anything can happen. I'm not sure I'll find the OVF on the A200 much better than the A300 (as many people point it out) because the E520 has a fairly small OVF and I'm used to it. As for LV, the only advantage IMO is that it gives a bit more flexibility when photographing objects that are aweckwardly placed.

I've tried both the A350 and A300. In my opinion the novelty of livewiew importance gave way to XSI's bigger 3" LCD and big bright viewfinder! After viewing full size all the noise in the Sony photos turned me off. I think I may opt for the better picture quality and color of the Oly. Don't need more that 2-3 lenses and will have to forgo the newer menu and lcd of xsi and best ergonomics of Sony.

I say go with your gut. You like the Oly strait away and have re-confirmed your attraction to it. You're aware of the limitations of the dynamic range, high iso performance and focus performance as compared to the competition. And others here have pointed out how those will affect the subject matter you like to shoot. But at the end of the day we all have personal preferences. If you went with another camera you'd always be wanting the Oly. So that seems the right decision for you.

I'm just gonna come in to throw my 2 rupias in and advise you to go with olympus.

I recently switched from nikon to olympus (e520), after extensive readings on image quality, which was my concern over anything else. as an architect I often shoot indoors, and I'm more pleased with my pictures with the e520 than I expected. the lab tests on oly glass are quite positive, and they don't show you everything: there's contrast, which is extremely important and quite difficult to measure in tests. you can see that from sample images as well.

the olympus does have its down sides, as is the case with any manufacturer. at high iso and medium light, it performs as well as anything else in its price range, but at low light/high iso (1600 iso, night scene with lots of sky, for instance), you can see some banding, which you wouldn't with the best cameras in that price range (not the case with the a350; I don't know about the canon). not a deal breaker, though, and takes some pixel peeping to notice. another issue would be AF tracking for moving subjects, since it only has 3 AF points. canon would win at that with 9 af points. they're otherwise quite good, for low-light or AF-C/predictive focus; I recently shot a lot of night scenes with it and not once did it fail to focus, even in quite dark areas.

about DR... I thought the narrower dynamic range would be a bigger deal than it really is. I didn't really notice it, even when shooting bright skies with clouds (a side-by-side comparison might show it, but I haven't tried it). it might be because, as the graph below shows, it doesn't really clip highlights earlier than it should; it rather just fails to extend detail on them as some of the competition do.

imho, something to be considered only if highlight detail is particularly important for your shooting.

even with a kit lens, a 100% crop from an oly at up to iso 400 looks incredibly good. if you do decide to upgrade your all around lens, a oly 520 + 14-54 kit would get you the best image quality out there for a zoom at its price or even a few hundred dollars above its price, no doubt about it - the extra apperture stop or so compared to most of the competition being a nice way to handle the rare occasion where you'd need high iso at low light to make up for the banding.

this is all my honest opinion. I might be wrong at some points, but my appreciation of the positive sides of the olympus system is purely based on recent experience and reading, and is what swung me towards it. too often you see people bashing olympus for one reason or other - and most of it is indeed based on facts. but it's important to judge the veracity and proportion of those facts, and the impact it has on image quality. there's no substitute for sample images for that. since my shooting style seems similar to yours, I can agree with the impression you have about the stuff you've seen.

situations where you should, imho, prefer other brands, would be if you had maybe usd 2k+ to spend; if highlight detail was crucial for what you do (not the case with interior scenes and pets); or if you needed specific lenses that olympus doesn't offer.

the nikon d90 (one camera with a sensor that somewhat stands out from the crowd) plus a nikkor 16-85 vr, for intance, would be worth considering if you were willing to go that far up the price list - in which case you could also consider a e520+12-60. but I digress. since apparently that isn't the case, I'd vote for the e520 + 2 lens kit.

>I say go with your gut. You like the Oly strait away and have re-confirmed your >attraction to it. You're aware of the limitations of the dynamic range, high iso
>performance and focus performance as compared to the competition. And others >here have pointed out how those will affect the subject matter you like to shoot. >But at the end of the day we all have personal preferences. If you went with >another camera you'd always be wanting the Oly. So that seems the right decision >for you.
Au contraire.....my first choice was by far Sony.
I dislike the Oly old retro ergonomics, small viewfinder small lcd quite honestly it looks old. But I realize the main reason for a camera is not ergonomics. Plus all the bs in the US market is for Canon and Sony ...the biggest advertisers.
I tried the Oly just for kicks and since ...I've compared photo after photo with the XSI and almost always the Oly takes the better picture.
Below is a link with xsi photos using a Canon 70- 200 f4 lens. Check the better looking image, colors and better detail in some areas
LINK HAS BEEN CORRECTED!

photo after photo with the XSI and almost always the Oly takes the better picture.
Below is a link with xsi photos using a Canon 70- 200 f4 lens. Check the better looking image, colors and better detail in some areas

Actually that's a link to the Oly lens review. I couldn't find where the XSi and 70-200 f4 photos were.

Now, you had another link with a single photo from each camera of a house. To that I would only say I would caution you from making conclusions based upon a single photo posted in the gear forum of one camera. For example if you go into a Canon forum and see a single comparison photo of that kit to say Sony I would hardly call it a scientific test.

I've seen good work from both kits. But I stand by my advice - you seem to have made up your mind. So why exactly are you arguing the point. I simply reminded you of the areas in question that have a direct impact on your stated needs - and focus performance, dynamic range and high iso performance will all have an impact. Which, of course, is why we always tend to ask what you plan on photographing as that is what determines what technical aspects of a camera are likely to have a bearing on success.

Again, if you like the Oly please buy and enjoy it. Not sure why you want to argue the point. No one is telling you it's a mistake.

Actually that's a link to the Oly lens review. I couldn't find where the XSi and 70-200 f4 photos were.

Now, you had another link with a single photo from each camera of a house. To that I would only say I would caution you from making conclusions based upon a single photo posted in the gear forum of one camera. For example if you go into a Canon forum and see a single comparison photo of that kit to say Sony I would hardly call it a scientific test.

I've seen good work from both kits. But I stand by my advice - you seem to have made up your mind. So why exactly are you arguing the point. I simply reminded you of the areas in question that have a direct impact on your stated needs - and focus performance, dynamic range and high iso performance will all have an impact. Which, of course, is why we always tend to ask what you plan on photographing as that is what determines what technical aspects of a camera are likely to have a bearing on success.

Again, if you like the Oly please buy and enjoy it. Not sure why you want to argue the point. No one is telling you it's a mistake.

hey, johnG, may I remind you that this is not a court room, but a forum where people discuss and share information on photography and photography gear? why did you get so touchy? just because the man expressed his opinion and you happened to disagree with it? that's why we're here. not to argue, but to discuss. that's why the man mentioned anything in the first place. he's not arguing just for the sake of it. he's throwing information out there if anyone is willing to discuss it. he started out with a few impressions and he's merely elaborating on how they evolved.

seems to me that you're not much of a moderator with that kind of attitude.